Long before the first Europeans set foot in Africa, native kings and chieftains had traded in slaves. There were white captives held in African slave markets, people who had been kidnapped by pirates during raids on the coasts of England, Ireland and France. These slaves were very highly valued by North African chieftains. The gold mining industry on the Gold Coast, modern-day Ghana, was also a magnet for the African slave trade, which continued long after the European nations agreed to its abolition. White slaves were still held in North Africa as late as 1626.

Around the 1470's, the Portuguese began to play a middleman role in the slave trade, between the various African kingdoms. They imported slaves to the Gold Coast from Benin, Kongo and Angola. But after 1540 the Portuguese involvement was curtailed when the Songhai Empire of Western Sudan increased the number of slaves it could trade with the Gold Coast merchants. The desperate need for labour in the gold mines led the Fanti and Asant of the Gold Coast to acquire their slaves in exchange for gold.

The slave trade in Africa was dominated by strong states such as Akwamu and Oyu on the Gold Coast. The Ekba of Calaba controlled the marketing and trading networks of other areas of the continent, and the Aro traded deep into Nigeria, dominating many of the smaller tribes there. The Aro was particularly adept at persuading chiefs and petty kings to "donate" slaves to prove their wealth, or status.

During the 17th century, English ships were contracted to transport slaves from Sao Tome, a Portuguese island colony off the Atlantic coast of Africa, to the Gold Coast. But this trade provided only a fraction of the total amount of slaves imported to the Gold Coast region. The vast majority were transported there by African traders, who had acquired the slaves from various chiefs and kings in exchange for ivory, textiles and hides. Within Africa slaves were a valuable commodity for the numerous chiefs and kings. Many of the slaves were captured members of rival tribes, taken during wars for land and cattle. Then there were the tribes' own fold who had been deemed "undesirable," such as those who had broken tribal laws, or who were rivals for titles and land.

On the Gold Coast mining was expanding rapidly and as such there was a need to enlarge the agricultural areas to provide food for the miners, so slaves were also needed for clearing land for cultivation. The gold mining here then began to attract the interest of the European countries, and trade began between the Dutch and the Gold Coast in about 1642. As the kings on the Gold Coast demanded slaves in exchange for gold, the Dutch soon became involved in transporting slaves to them.

English Involvement

English involvement in the slave trade began about 1663, following the establishment of the Company of Royal Adventurers of England Trading in Africa, who were given the monopoly for the slave trade on the African coast. The Company joined African chiefs and merchants to establish a trade relationship that facilitated export of slaves from Africa to the newly developing areas of North America.

The trade with North America, and the Caribbean islands, increased the demand for slaves from Africa. Initially though, labour on the sugar and tobacco plantations of the Caribbean and North American colonies had been provided by white labourers. Many of these labourers were working-class people from Britain who had been kidnapped and transported to the West Indies to work as labourers there. But soon the English plantation owners found that their profits were lagging behind those of their fellow Europeans, Dutch and Portuguese, who used negro slaves. When they discovered how much cheaper it was to use black slaves, as opposed to white labourers, the demand for African slaves increased dramatically.

The English plantation system in the West Indies was at its peak in the mid-1700's, but at this time the European settlers on the east coast of America were still using their own white labourers, or household servants, on the rice and tobacco plantations there. But soon they too were to learn of this cheaper source of labour that could be provided by the African slave trade.

Another factor that is invariably overlooked is the way in which the crews of the slave-ships were recruited, and then subsequently treated. Apart from the Captain and his immediate staff, the majority of the crew were men forced into service at sea by a variety of devious, and often violent, methods, by unscrupulous landlords and debt-collectors in England. Everybody now knows about the "press gangs" that were used to force people into service with the navy; these same methods were used to provide crews for the slave ships.

Men were often sold to captains to pay off debts they were tricked into acquiring, or landlords would increase rents, and then evict and have arrested those who failed to pay up. Rather than go to jail, or be transported, most men opted to work their passage at sea. Ship owners used crimps to recruit unwary "sailors" by luring them into debt, and then offering to clear the debt by letting them work on a merchant vessel. Once at sea, the sailors faced atrocious conditions. Food was rationed to near-starvation levels and the water allowance was reduced to the bare minimum. One captain of an Atlantic slave ship, John Newton, described the sailors' conditions: "There is no trade in which sailors are treated with such little humanity... I have myself seen them when sick, beaten for being lazy till they had died under the blows." The development of the new colonies in North America and the West Indies would now cause a major increase in demand for slaves and sailors.

Paradoxically, the increase in the slave trade between Africa and North America also brought about a rise in the campaign for its abolition. This grew out of people becoming more aware of the trade's existence through religious pamphleteers and crusading merchants in England, who found the whole thing immoral. It should be remembered that, at this time, the majority of the people could not vote, could not read, and had no power. The campaign was in the hands of the few with power to change the laws of the land.

Abolition Campaign

The first man to organize a campaign against slavery was Granville Sharp, who founded an Anti-Slavery Society in 1760. Sharp became famous for his defence of a black immigrant in England, James Somersett, whose right to be free when he was here was established in law. Sharp also championed the idea of a home for slaves in Sierra Leone. It was Sharp's prolific campaigning against slavery that caused an Abolition Committee to be established in Parliament in 1787.

But the best known anti-slavery campaigner is William Wilberforce, the son of a wealthy merchant and the MP for Hull and Yorkshire. Wilberforce became the conscience of Parliament and in conjunction with Sharp lobbied hard for the Bill for Abolition of the African slave trade. With them was a third prominent campaigner, Thomas Clarkson, a man who campaigned for the abolition of the slave trade in all British colonies. Clarkson wrote the important book History of the Abolition of the African Slave Trade in 1808. These three men are accredited with raising the issue to such a height that it became a vital political matter to the competing Tories and Whigs in the Parliament of the late 18th century.

By the end of the 18th century, leading methodists and Quakers were campaigning vigorously against slavery in Africa. Wilberforce stated that the fight for abolition was a religious and humanitarian triumph over economic and political interests. From 1788 on, Parliament was inundated with petitions against the slave trade. Abolition came in 1807 with an act of Parliament that called for forfeiture of ships engaged in slavery and a fine of ÃâÃÂ£100 for each slave discovered aboard. Participation in the slave trade was punishable by transportation to a penal colony. Enforcement of abolition was carried out primarily by the Royal Navy. Constant action by the navy eventually encouraged other European nations to pass anti-slavery laws.

It was following the abolition of the slave trade that the British Empire expanded into Africa, as efforts to eradicate the trade led to more involvement in the continent. Treaties with African rulers, and the activities of merchants strengthened the links that Britain had with Africa. When Britain annexed part of Nigeria in 1861, the main reason for doing so was to stamp out the slave trade there. In fact, many African states and their rulers saw the abolition of slavery by Britain as an insult to Islam, which taught that non-Muslims could be lawfully enslaved.

Policing the Ban

Although it must be said that there can never be a case made for participation in the slave trade, it must remain a credit to this country that it played a leading role in stamping it out with the use of the Royal Navy as the policeman of abolition. Writing in his 1869 book, A History of European Morals, W. H. Lecky stated that: "The unweary, unostentatious, and inglorious crusade of England against slavery may probably be regarded as among the three or four virtuous pages comprised in the history of nations." In present-day Britain, there those who try to burden the entire nation with the guilt of slavery. This is palpably unfair.

The vast majority of the people at the time were unaware of its existence and, even if they had known of it, they were unable to do anything about it, since they had no voice in Parliament. The power in the land was held by some of the very people who profited from the slave trade, or by those who had the wealth to afford a conscience. Those who trooped to work a sixteen-hour day in the factories and mills of industrial cities like London, Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield had no knowledge of the profits made by slavery. Nor did they have the luxury of having the time and money for a conscience about the political issues of the day.

At the height of the anti-slavery campaign William Cobbett wrote to Wilberforce:

"You seem to have great affection for the negroes... I feel for the hard-pinched, the ill-treated, the beaten down labouring classes of England, Scotland and Ireland, to whom you do all the mischief that it is in your power to do; because you describe their situation as good, and because you do, in some degree, at any rate, draw the public attention away from their sufferings. In an impassioned letter to the Leeds Mercury in 1830, a social reformer, Richard Oastler, wrote:

"Thousands of our fellow creatures are existing in a state of slavery more horrid than are the victims of that hellish system, colonial slavery... The very streets which receive the droppings of the Anti-Slavery Society are every morning wet by the tears of innocent victims at the accursed shrine of avarice, who are compelled, not by the cart whip of the negro slave driver, but by the equally appalling thong or strap of the overlooker, to hasten, half-dressed, but NOT half-fed, to those magazines of British infantile slavery - the worsted mills in the town of Bradford." Oastler, a Tory land agent of estates near Huddersfield and Leeds, became the leader of the so-called Ten Hours Movement, which aimed to reduce the working day of factory children to 10 hours. The West Riding of Yorkshire was the heart of the factory reform movement, and many Short Time Committees were set up there.

Campaigning by a few radicals, and several of the more humane factory owners, led to a Factory Inquiry Commission being set up by Parliament in 1833. Reports to the Commission showed that children as young as 5, but more often 7, were employed in a working day of 14-16 hours, exclusive of intervals and meals. It was also reported that factory owners permitted overseers to flog and maltreat children and often took an active part themselves. In many factories children were employed on 12-hour night shifts. Medical reports to the Commission showed that thousands of children were maimed and deformed by factory work, lack of sleep often leading to accidents involving several children and adults.

No Campaigners Here

Children were also employed in the mines, starting underground at the age of about 7 or 8, when they would spend long hours alone in the darkness of the pit. Older boys and girls, strapped to loaded wagons, hauled these along tramways underground. Very small children as young as 5 or 6 were sometimes employed on the surface, in charge of the pit-head winding gear, responsible for the lives of colliers being hauled up and down the shaft.

Although in the case of African slavery the clergy, rich merchants and political reformers all united in protest at the immorality of the issue, there was no such concerted campaign on behalf of child slaves. In fact, many clergy and leading politicians of the time actually argued that working long hours in the factories was good for children. One senior clergyman and writer of the time, the Rev. Thomas Malthus, argued in his Essay on Population (1798) that poverty was natural and that to help the working class would be detrimental since it would enable them to live longer. Many radicals opposed interfering in the issue of the working day, saying that it should be left to people to decide how many hours they worked, and that if they wanted to work 16 hours then they should be allowed to. When the Ten Hours Movement argued for a reduction in the working day for children, the government opposed the move, saying that it would be detrimental to trade. The great radical William Cobbet scathingly commented on the Establishment position:

"A most surprising discovery has been made, namely, that all our greatness and prosperity, that our superiority over other nations, is owing to 30,000 little girls in Lancashire. If these little girls work two hours less in a day than they do now, it would occasion the ruin of the country." For the little girls of Lancashire, the bent and crippled children of Bradford's mills, the kids with coal trains strapped to their backs, there was NO Wilberforce, NO pamphlets being circulated.

In the wake of the Factory Inquiry Commission, a Factory Act of 1833 limited the hours to be worked in a day for the under-12s to eight, and to twelve hours for those aged 13-18. But there were clauses in the bill that allowed children to work successive eight-hour shifts, thus prolonging the adult working day to 16 hours. This Act became known as the "White Slavery Bill."

But now the newly-legalized Trades Unions were leading the fight to reduce the working time of children. In the past campaigning to relieve the conditions of the working class in Britain had resulted in a trip to the gallows pole, or transportation to a penal colony. People had learned that some things were acceptable to campaign for, others were outlawed. However, after decades of underground struggle, with hundreds of activists killed, imprisoned or transported, the mid-19th century saw the legalization of the Trades Unions. Now there was a forum for the campaign to help the working children.

In 1837, George Loveless, the leading figure of the Tolpuddle Martyrs (six Dorset labourers who had been sentenced to transportation to the penal colony of New South Wales for their Trades Union activity), made a speech to his fellow labourers:

"England has for many years been lifting her voice against the abominable practice of negro slavery. Numbers of great men have talked, have laboured and have struggled until at length emancipation has been granted to the black slaves in the West Indies. When will they dream of advocating the cause of England's white slaves?"

Why So Long?

At long last, during the latter part of the 19th century, a series of Factory Acts reduced the working hours for children, and also began to introduce the idea of providing working class children with an education. The Factory Act of 1867 permitted only part-time work for children under 11, and a further Act of 1870 put up the age of boys working underground in the mines to 12. This Act also set the maximum working week for children under 16 to 54 hours. A national system of education for working-class children only began after the 1870 Education Act set up local School Boards. But as these Boards were allowed to charges fees for their classes, most ordinary workers could still not afford to send their children to school. It was only after another Education Act of 1891, which permitted schools to claim grants for the children it educated from poorer families, that a more universal education system came into being.

Why was it then that fifty years after the abolition of black slavery, the enslavement of white children in Britain was still acceptable? Why were people able to find the time, the conscience, and the effort, to campaign on behalf of people in a far-off land? And, moreover, why is it that in our present age this issue is rarely discussed, and certainly not with the vigour and enthusiasm with which African slavery is debated? The fact that child slavery was on the doorstep, so to speak, and that it was possible to eradicate it quite easily, seems incredible to us now. The British Empire put the full force of its Royal Navy, Army and Diplomatic Service into enforcing the eradication of the African slave trade. The British put pressure on other European nations, risking wars and trade embargoes, to bring in a world-wide ban on slavery. But the same Government, clergy and political reformers would not lower the working day of a child of 7 in Britain to 10 hours!

Political Correctness circa 1800

The cause of African slavery was championed, whilst that of the child slaves of Britain was virtually ignored, because of an early form of political correctness. The "bleeding hearts" of the day preferred to campaign for abolition of slavery because it was more socially acceptable: because it was taking place somewhere else. Considering the attitudes of their ilk today, it is unsurprising that they would campaign for one but ignore the other. When one reflects and considers the suffering of our ancestors, our kith and kin, and the way their plight was ignored, then you have to say that we are the ones who should be angry. Conquerors have enslaved their enemies since before the dawn of time, the native Britons were enslaved by the Romans, then by the Saxons who, in turn, were enslaved by the Normans. We move on. And it is the mark of a civilized and mature folk that they accept that what was done in the past was done in the context of the age in which it took place.

For those who did not know about these things, and sadly there are a great number, I hope that you will now be better equipped to resist attempts to make you feel guilty about your past. And perhaps you will educate others who are ignorant of the truth.

There may be things that have been done by the British that have been wrong, but they are far outweighed by those things that have been right. Our ancestors suffered more than any plantation labourer. Let no-one lecture us with the pious guilt of the "chattering classes." Don't preach to us, liberal, when it was your kind that emancipated the African slave while leaving our own children to work 16-hour days in the factories!

Bibliography Edward Reynolds: A History of the Atlantic Slave Trade. Eric Hopkins: A Social History of the English Working Classes. C. P. Hill: British Economic and Social History 1700-1982. Joyce Marlow: The Tolpuddle Martyrs.

Yea, if only the UK hadn't outlawed guns too. Ever wonder why their crime rate is so high? The day the gun ban went into effect was like Christmas for robbers, muggers, and rapists.

I think Australia and the UK are still the best chances for re-fostering conservatism in the rest of the world, though. A select elite force of American FReepers should pick a place and migrate! Gotta start somewhere!

When Britain annexed part of Nigeria in 1861, the main reason for doing so was to stamp out the slave trade there. In fact, many African states and their rulers saw the abolition of slavery by Britain as an insult to Islam, which taught that non-Muslims could be lawfully enslaved.

Still teaches and practices that non-Muslims can be enslaved.

7
posted on 12/18/2004 7:43:31 AM PST
by Mark was here
(My tag line was about to be censored.)

It is very easy to see how Trades Unionism and Communism could have developed in England under these circumstances. And it is also easy to see how Southern Americans could act righteous and claim that fleeing blacks would face harder conditions in the North than they did on the Southern farm, or that blacks in slavery fared better than white Northern factory workers.

Nonsens. The industrial revolution was a difficult period compared to today but it wa a boon to workers, compared to the pre-capitalist era. Not surprisingly, many of pro-slavery southerners, such as George Fitzhugh, were explicitly socialist because of their disdaine for thrifty free laborers (who they insulted by calling "wage slaves").

Few realize and fewer will admit that the best thing that ever happened to human trafficking was the white man. After existing for centuries if not millenia in Africa and Asia, slavery was introduced to western Europe. A few scant centuries later it was outlawed, followed shortly after by the young United States. If it was up to the rest of the world instead of Great Britain and the US, slaves would be advertised on television.

Nonsens. The industrial revolution was a difficult period compared to today but it wa a boon to workers, compared to the pre-capitalist era.

Nonsense, back at you. Calling the ceaseless toil of five-year-olds and the flogging of tiny, exhausted children "difficult" is like calling slave life in antebellum Georgia "difficult." Life was a horror for these people. You try doing physical labor in the lightless depths of a coal mine, sixteen hours a day, with no hope, inadequate food, and no rest until death. Compared to the more measured labor of rural life, factory work was dire. I speak from experience as one who spent her formative years living and working on a farm with little machinery. Agricultural life is hard, but it is nothing compared to the suffering of industrial workers.

Look at specific records in the "South" and you will see how few whites, even the top citizens, owned any slaves. Read M.J.Cash's classic work called "The Mind of the South" and you will see the whites fared no better than the blacks , excepting the gentry as is the case in all societies in all periods in all places. My grandmother worked 12+ hours a day at age 9 along with her parents and siblings in the Dan River Cotton Mills, owned and operated and $$$$ flowing to absentee carpetbaggers and their scion in Manhattan, just to put food on the table. I have photographs of good middle-class ( for the South!) land-owning white farming citizens of Pittsylvania County Virginia in the 1930s at a "laying out" of a dead child, no casket, no shoes, no suit, torn 'overhauls' and worn out shirt only, on the taken down door of their 3 room log home as the only board they owned, set on stumps. Among 10 people in the picture there is only two pair of shoes, and only one has laces and intact tops.

Want to look at slavery? Look at whites in the South from 1865 until the beginning of WWII.

In the 1950s a full time working man at Dan River Cotton Mills, proudly the largest single unit cotton mills in the world, made $15 to max $35 a week. In the 1970s that same man made $65 to $80 a week. At the same time, as a first year at Washington and Lee Univ., all members of my fraternity were offered $11-$18 an hour plus room and board outside of Pittsburgh as totally new and unskilled workers in custodial type jobs in the various industries there ; 5-10 times what a skilled man made in Virginia after years of service! This is fact. I was there! And that same working man in the South didn't want a damned thing the Washington Gubbimint could "give" ( return loot) to him and still doesn't! And today here is one more proud and highly educated and successful Southerner who still doesn't want a damned thing from the disgraceful, filthy and vagrant strewn Washington DC. Now let's talk more about "victims".

Don't rant in my presence of the beneficent and kind "Nawth" . I know both what white poverty and the whining leftist hypocrisy of leftists and black victim mentality looks like in reality and the total rape of a whole region of native whites for a hundred years by the whining bleeding hearts. Their hypocrisy seems also to be rooted in Britain of the past and lives well in the socialist mantra of today.

Universal-blog from an independent universe.. Amazing display of British antislavery action...HOWEVER;

PITY too.. for England for fall for slavery again in so complete a manner.. Socialism is indeed slavery by government.. And democracy is the disease from which it comes.. After such a hard and prolonged battle, its ironic to see England so completely slave ridden..

Socialism has spread almost unchecked to all of URP... too.. Even in the United States slavery is practiced with abandon.. Here in the U.S. most all of the MSM, MSP, and ALL of Academia, damn near most of Hollywood are pushing slavery again as the MORAL thing to do....

Socialism is absolutely and completely Slavery by government.. As the rise of U.S. Federal Governments internal power and the scope and breadth of it rises. The Slavery of the American people is insured and transfered to other countries, like China.. The Chinese already were slaves(always were) but their form of slavery was out dated.. Socialism (usually through democracy) in its purest sense is spread to enslave the world.. In the U.S. today merely mentioning the words socialism or communism (which is socialism) is frowned upon as impolite..

Slavery is NOT DEAD but is alive in its most virulent form, Socialism.. And is spreading to every corner of the earth.. Canada, Australia, all URPeans country's are already SLAVE markets.. The rest of the world with archaic slaveing systems are slowing being UPGRADED to socialism though DEMOCRACY... The next time you hear the word democracy be advised, democracy is the social disease that socialism COME FROM... Socialism is slavery by government through Mob rule(democracy).. voted in by the Slaves themselves...

NO I'm not kidding, its true.. Humans don't seem to be too smart.. Caution: be careful when around a human.. listen very carefully to all the say. They have a slave mentality..

22
posted on 12/18/2004 9:23:53 AM PST
by hosepipe
(This Propaganda has been edited to include not a small amount of Hyperbole..)

You said: Few realize and fewer will admit that the best thing that ever happened to human trafficking was the white man. After existing for centuries if not millenia in Africa and Asia, slavery was introduced to western Europe. A few scant centuries later it was outlawed, followed shortly after by the young United States. If it was up to the rest of the world instead of Great Britain and the US, slaves would be advertised on television.

19 posted on 12/18/2004 8:57:42 AM PST by SpaceBar

Thank you Spacebar How very true. And as truth, how hard to refute the contrary leftist spin and its refrain from the victim mentalities.

Sorry, but many Christian abolitionists also opposed child labor in sweat shops. The evangelical movement, in 19th century America at least, had many who held both anti-slavery and anti-child labor views.

On the topic of slavery itself, yes, slavery was a nearly universal phenomenon in the mid-1700's. It was a segment of the European Christian community that first began to realize that chattel slavery was inconsistent with the love of God in Jesus for all humankind.

Defending slavery in 1704 is understandable. Defending it in 2004 is damnable.

And, yes, other societies had slave practices that were as bad or worse than those of the Europeans. So what! Can't those who love freedom and the Declaration's claim that "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" simply say that our ancestors, God love them, were wrong. They were wrong to hold men in slavery and, when slavery ended, they were wrong to make laws that enforced legal segregation based on race.

I do not disagree with you regarding the wrongs of slavery and, trust me, no one here seems to be defending the institution. However, I must say the point being made here is that blacks do not have a monopoloy concerning the experience of slavery which is a huge misconception held by many.

Of course you are correct and slavery is wrong. But to try and enslave people who were equally "victimized" over the years by touting a partial truth is also wrong. The propaganda finger of the leftists always points in one direction and one direction only. It points always to "How we can destroy the West." The sad part is that the schools, media and leftist institutions have our people believing the "victimization" of slavery was created, fostered, institutionalized and continues today by the United states. This is patently false. This is another socialist Big Lie. Remember, the great socialist Adolf hitler also convinced people they were "victims" and not responsible for their plight. This is what socialism does. It convinces people they should feel guilty or not responsible for their situation so socialism can save them. The truth is that socialism speakes with a forked tongue in its quest to enslave the world. It's a shame this victim philosophy is what our kids have beed getting throughout their education for 40 years now. And we have not bothered to stop the Big Lie.

Sir, I have NO idea why this tirade was directed at me. I am of Southern blood on both sides of my family. My maternal grandfather came from the darkest poverty in eastern Tennessee. All my living relatives are humble country people from a frankly impoverished background near Richmond. I am in perfect agreement with you. Of course I'm aware that only about 3% of Southern whites were slaveowners prior to the War. And I am the last, the very last, person to speak approvingly of the North or its values. I am only saying that I can understand why the Trade Unionists and people like Marx found fertile soil to till among the exhausted and hopeless people of Victorian England. People like that, particularly in an urban environment and with no cultural history of autonomy or pide, are ripe for exploitation and can be easily misled.

Well....Marx didn't really have much success during this lifetime in Britain. Before the beginning of the twentieth century, most British workers before the twentieth century voted for the Liberals, a largely classical liberal, pro-free trade party. When it came, the greatest success for Marxism was in the more backward countries of Europe....and to a lesser extent in Western Europe beginning in the early twentieth century.

British workers, like all workers, wanted opportunity to work during this period. They read folks like Samuel Smiles who promoted thrift and hard work. Also, they generally opposed chattel slavery. In fact, pressure brought British workers were largely responsible for preventing intervention on the CSA side in the Civil War.

I love the British, at least the educated ones. If I had to pick one place to live if it couldn't be the United States, it'd be there. That or Australia.

I've only visited the UK once (Bath/Bristol region). Among the fifty or so academics I met (professional colleagues), many would eventually bring up their hatred of conservative British politicians. They thought Lady Thatcher was the Anti-Christ. (well, at least the few that had contact with Christian culture, I suppose.)

The one memorable departure from these diatribes occurred on a visit to a postal shop in Bristol. Incidentally, the fellow running the shop learned I was from "flyover country, USA".

The good fellow energetically bent my ear with questions about the Old West, Native Americans and "heartland America" culture/legend.

If I ever get back to England, I can tell you who I will seek out to buy a few pints at the local pub.

PS: the other destination: Alberta. If any province of Canada ever breaks away and joins the USA...that will be the one. (and then BC will follow as well...as part of "Greater California)

No expert on BC, but as an Alaskan who has travelled through BC on my way to "lower 48" quite a bit, but I think you would have to minus Vancouver first before your statement be correct. BC is like Washington, the left coast (Seattle, Vancouver) rules.

Vancouver first before your statement be correct. BC is like Washington, the left coast (Seattle, Vancouver) rules.

I generally agree with your assessment. BC is culturally more liberal than Alberta (no shock there)... in my rambling speculation, I was just thinking that if Alberta ever did anything as extreme as leaving Canada and joining the USA, BC might also look at the map and bolt as well, although they'd be more like an added Washington/ Oregon/CA.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.